Subscribe to this blog

Follow by Email

Search This Blog

A Thought, Security, Bad Logos?

Nuclear energy is one of the most important energies for humans in the future. The world community can safely control the "double-edged sword" and contribute to the world's enduring peace and common prosperity as long as countries work closely based on the principles of protecting mankind's common interests and mutual benefits.

Doesn’t get much simpler than that.

---

After President Obama’s Nuclear Security Summit, NEI hosted a companion meeting with global leaders from the nuclear industry to take the first steps in an action plan that industry will develop with government.

[nEI President and CEO Marvin] Fertel emphasized that the industry would work with governments to ensure security of nuclear materials.

“This meeting is part of an ongoing engagement by U.S. industry—with our colleagues from around the world—to provide input to government policy, share lessons learned in this area, and ensure that we continue to operate our commercial facilities in a manner that prioritizes nuclear safety and security above all other matters,” he said.

Much more here, with some video of the press conference following the conference.

---

We were amused by the New York Post column by Michael Goodwin that notes the similarity between the Nuclear Security Summit’s logo and the crescent symbol of Islam.

No, I am not suggesting President Obama is a secret Muslim. But I am certain the crescent-like design of the logo is not a coincidence, especially at an event where Iran's nuclear ambition and al Qaeda's search for a bomb are prime topics.

Well, the only way to be certain about something is to know it is the truth, and Goodwin doesn’t, so that’s hooey. (And the rest of the article is just as illuminating.) But in investigating further we made our own startling discovery.

Here’s the Nuclear Summit logo (with the President is Chinese President Hu Jintao):

and here’s the NEI logo:

NEI’s is pretty crescent-like, and that ball coming at you, does it suggest something sinister? It’s possible that both logos, in their different ways, represent an electron speeding around a nucleus – that might be logical given the subject matter and all – but how can we know that? In the absence of common sense, shouldn’t we always jump to the conclusion that most supports our prejudices?

Get link

Facebook

Twitter

Pinterest

Google+

Email

Labels

Comments

When dealing with abstraction you can almost always find what you are looking for if you look hard enough. In this case I that thinking certainly applies. That said, I find the Nuclear Security Summit logo to be far less sinister; I view it symbolically as how nuclear energy is about to come full circle. Of course, I am most likely seeing that because that is precisely what I want to believe.

The NEI logo has some vague similarity to the Blake's 7 logo. I therefore conclude that NEI is secretly dedicated to the eventual establishment of a militaristic interstellar totalitarian state whose elite civilian and military administrators are all poms.

Popular posts from this blog

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.